At the funeral of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, his sons sat in the front rows alongside senior clerics, government officials and security commanders. But Mojtaba Khamenei—the son whose appearance everyone had expected—was nowhere to be seen.
Mojtaba assumed the position of supreme leader following his father’s death, and the funeral had been expected to provide the first public glimpse of Iran’s new leadership.
The ceremony came as Tehran sought to project continuity, signaling that the state’s institutions remained intact despite the death of the man who had led the country for decades. Instead, the absence of his successor fueled speculation about Mojtaba’s health, the security measures surrounding him and the extent of the authority he is actually exercising.
Experts who spoke to Alhurra offered differing explanations. Some argued that the government missed an opportunity to bolster the legitimacy of its new leader at a critical moment. Others suggested that keeping Mojtaba out of public view reflected extraordinary security precautions following the breach that led to his father’s assassination.
More broadly, they said the focus should extend beyond Mojtaba’s absence to how Iran is being governed during wartime and the respective roles played by the Office of the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in decision-making.
A Wartime Succession
Eric Lob, an associate professor of politics and international relations at Florida International University, said Iran’s leadership had little choice but to move quickly after Ali Khamenei’s death.
Beyond filling a constitutional vacuum, appointing a successor also sent a message to Israel and the United States that the assassination of the supreme leader had not destabilized the Islamic Republic.
According to Lob, selecting Mojtaba Khamenei was intended to preserve institutional continuity and maintain the political and security system built under his father.
But elevating the late leader’s son also exposed the Islamic Republic to an uncomfortable political contradiction. A system born out of a revolution that overthrew a monarchy effectively placed power in the hands of the son of its previous ruler, resembling dynastic succession, even if carried out through existing constitutional institutions.
A public appearance at his father’s funeral would have carried significant symbolic weight, allowing the government to formally present Mojtaba as Iran’s new leader.
Lob does not believe Mojtaba’s absence indicates a power vacuum. But, he said, “my assumption is that if the regime could have had him appear in public, they would have done so for the purposes of legitimacy.”
Security Considerations
Hussein Banai, an associate professor of international studies at Indiana University, offers a different explanation, arguing that Mojtaba’s absence may be a direct consequence of the security threats facing Iran’s leadership.
If the circle surrounding Ali Khamenei had already been penetrated before his death, Banai said, it would be natural for authorities to impose strict limits on his successor’s movements and avoid revealing his location or public schedule.
Under that interpretation, keeping Mojtaba away from the funeral would be a security measure rather than evidence that his authority is weak.
Banai also does not rule out health concerns. Unconfirmed reports have suggested Mojtaba may have been injured, and authorities may have chosen not to expose him publicly if his condition prevented him from projecting the image they wanted for a wartime leader.
But keeping him out of sight creates another problem, he said. It raises further questions about his ability to carry out his duties and leaves room for competing narratives about both his condition and who is actually running the country.
Banai argues that power in Iran is not concentrated solely in the office of the supreme leader. The leader’s office includes an extensive network of officials, advisers and bureaucratic institutions that coordinate with the government, the Revolutionary Guards and the country’s religious establishment.
As a result, decision-making can continue even when the supreme leader remains out of public view, through an institutional apparatus that worked alongside his father for years and has extensive experience managing the state’s affairs.
The Revolutionary Guards’ Role
Alan Eyre, a former U.S. diplomat and Iran expert, said focusing on Mojtaba’s absence risks obscuring a more important issue: how decisions are actually made in Iran.
According to Eyre, statements by Iranian civilian and military officials have remained disciplined and consistent, suggesting that the state’s institutions are still coordinating their positions despite the new supreme leader’s absence from public view.
He added that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is not an institution waiting for a leadership vacuum before asserting itself. Rather, it is already a central partner in Iran’s decision-making process.
Even if Mojtaba Khamenei is in good health, Eyre said, he is unlikely from the outset to wield the political authority or personal influence that his father accumulated over decades.
During wartime, institutions responsible for protecting the leadership, maintaining deterrence and managing Iran’s network of allied armed groups become even more influential.
Under this view, the strength of Iran’s new leadership will ultimately be measured by its ability to manage those portfolios—maintaining control over allied groups, preserving channels of funding and direction, and deciding when to escalate or de-escalate regional tensions.
Ali Khamenei’s funeral was expected to demonstrate that the transfer of power had been swift and that the institutions of the Islamic Republic remained cohesive. Instead, Mojtaba Khamenei’s absence left that picture incomplete.
His absence has once again raised questions about the extent of his authority and how heavily he depends on the Office of the Supreme Leader, the Revolutionary Guards and the institutions he inherited from his father.
Adapted and translated from the original Arabic.
